INDIVIDUAL CONTROL BY INDIVIDUAL VAV - APACS from Argon Air
INDIVIDUAL CONTROL BY INDIVIDUAL VAV - APACS from Argon Air
INDIVIDUAL CONTROL BY INDIVIDUAL VAV - APACS from Argon Air
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>INDIVIDUAL</strong> <strong>CONTROL</strong> <strong>BY</strong> <strong>INDIVIDUAL</strong> <strong>VAV</strong><br />
Hans F. Levy, P.E., Life member of ASHRAE<br />
President, <strong>Argon</strong> Corporation<br />
www.argonair.com<br />
4968 Tamiami Trail North<br />
Naples, FL 34103<br />
information@argonair.com<br />
239.430.7876<br />
239.430.7877 Fax<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
Individual control is needed and can be cost<br />
effective. “Thermal Comfort,”Chapter 8 in the<br />
ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, 2001,<br />
indicates vast differences between people’s<br />
needs for thermal comfort, strongly indicating<br />
the need for individual control. Metabolic heat<br />
generation varies in a ratio as high as ten to<br />
one (Table 4, Chapter 8, ASHRAE Handbook<br />
of Fundamentals, 2001.) The system<br />
described below was installed in a bank in 20<br />
work areas. In a two year period there was not<br />
a single complaint. Occupants and<br />
management enjoyed 100% satisfaction.<br />
Fanger et al. (1973, 1985, 1986 and 1989)<br />
demonstrate in many studies that personal<br />
comfort will lead to greater employee<br />
productivity, greater satisfaction and lower<br />
turnover. Note that typical employee costs<br />
today are $3000/sm/yr ($300/sf/yr), versus<br />
$300/sm/yr ($30/sf/yr) for other building costs.<br />
Therefore the results of individual control are<br />
great savings in personnel costs, the greatest<br />
cost of an office building operation.<br />
DISCUSSION<br />
Since maintaining different temperatures in<br />
close quarters is impractical, varying air<br />
velocity (<strong>VAV</strong>) through personal air outlets,<br />
adjustable by occupants, is the best method of<br />
providing personal control. This requires<br />
redesign of office buildings. Accomplishing<br />
delivery of personal air flow to every<br />
workstation is also impractical, except by<br />
means of raised access floor, which is now<br />
widely and increasingly used in office<br />
buildings.<br />
The effectiveness of this approach was tested<br />
and proven at the University of California at<br />
Berkeley by Fred Bauman, et al., and<br />
published as “Lab Test of <strong>APACS</strong>,”24 April<br />
2000. The tests show that by varying the<br />
airflow, occupants can effect a change to<br />
achieve individual thermal comfort.<br />
TEST CONDITIONS<br />
Tests were designed to compare heat removal<br />
by moving air compared to changes in ambient<br />
temperature. The tests covered two room<br />
temperature setpoints (26 and 28°C [79 and<br />
82°F]) and both horizontal and vertical<br />
mounting positions of the <strong>Argon</strong> Personal <strong>Air</strong><br />
Conditioning System (<strong>APACS</strong>). For each room<br />
temperature a reference test was first<br />
performed in which the mannequin was tested<br />
with no air flow <strong>from</strong> the <strong>APACS</strong> unit. Cooling<br />
tests were performed at different air volumes<br />
and temperatures at both the 26°C (79°F) and<br />
28°C (82°F) room temperatures. The majority<br />
of tests were done at the 26°C (79°F) room<br />
temperature with horizontal position of the<br />
<strong>APACS</strong>, for which the supply temperatures<br />
studied were 21°C, 23°C, and 25°C (70°F,<br />
73°F, and 77°F). At 28°C (82°F) room<br />
temperature with horizontal position and 26°C<br />
(79°F) room temperature with vertical position,<br />
only the 21°C (70°F) supply temperature was<br />
studied. Four air supply volumes were tested<br />
to cover the range of supply rates expected<br />
<strong>from</strong> the <strong>APACS</strong> unit. The volumes tested<br />
were 10, 30, 50 and 70 cfm (5, 14, 24, and 33<br />
L/s). All volumes were tested at the 26°C<br />
(79°F) room temperature setpoint with<br />
horizontal position, while only the 30 and 70<br />
cfm (14 and 33 L/s) rates were tested for the<br />
28°C (82°F)/horizontal and 26°C<br />
(79°F)/vertical tests. The <strong>APACS</strong> unit was<br />
tested under focused air flow direction,<br />
meaning the air supply was directed toward<br />
the mannequin in a way that maximized the<br />
overall (whole-body) cooling rate. Tests were<br />
designed to measure worst case conditions.<br />
The study only tested for sensible cooling. As<br />
reported in the test document, prior tests with a<br />
wet mannequin indicate that the cooling effect<br />
would be at least doubled (“Lab Test of<br />
<strong>APACS</strong>,”p. 11). The result is that, if the<br />
occupant can vary airflow, he can increase or<br />
decrease the heat removal over a wide range,<br />
with the same results as changing the
temperature of the air. The study shows that<br />
the cooling effect range is up to 8°C or 14°F. In<br />
other words, with a room temperature of 28°C<br />
(82°F) an occupant can change his<br />
environment <strong>from</strong> the ambient temperature to<br />
20°C (68°F) with full airflow, and he can do this<br />
without affecting his neighbor. This range<br />
offers enough variety to make everyone<br />
comfortable and happy under almost any<br />
circumstance. As the test data clearly show, it<br />
is not necessary to change the ambient<br />
temperature to provide personal comfort. The<br />
tests also show that it is practical to ramp the<br />
temperature up to utilize stored cooling in the<br />
building and to reduce peak demand as well as<br />
required equipment capacity.<br />
Figure 1<br />
<strong>Air</strong> speed required to offset increased<br />
temperature. The air speed increases in the<br />
amount necessary to maintain the same total<br />
heat transfer <strong>from</strong> the skin. This figure applies<br />
to increase in temperature above those<br />
allowed in the summer comfort zone with both<br />
t r and t a increasing equally. The starting point<br />
of the curves at 0.2 m/s (40 fpm) corresponds<br />
to the recommended air speed limit for the<br />
summer comfort zone at 26°C (79°F) and<br />
typical ventilation (i.e., turbulence intensity<br />
between 30% and 60%). Acceptance of the<br />
increased air speed requires occupant control<br />
of the local speed. [ANSI/ASHRAE 55-1992,<br />
p. 9, Fig. 3]<br />
DESIGN<br />
The concept of using air movement for control<br />
instead of temperature change is not new. It<br />
has been used in airplanes and automobiles<br />
for many years. However, the limited space in<br />
vehicles, and the need to move sufficient air to<br />
effect the necessary cooling, results in too high<br />
a velocity, which feels drafty. In general there<br />
is not sufficient space to limit the velocity to an<br />
average of less than 1 m/s (200fpm). This is<br />
approximately two miles per hour and meets<br />
ANSI/ASHRAE 55-1992 (see Fig. 1). In offices<br />
there is usually more than enough space to<br />
move sufficient air while adhering to the above<br />
limits.<br />
In order to limit the air velocity as described<br />
above, to provide air to the occupants below<br />
room temperature, and not to lose the<br />
effectiveness of the moving air, the air must be<br />
discharged very near the person. The ideal<br />
distance is in the vicinity of 30 centimeters<br />
(one foot) or less. This proximity also provides<br />
the individual occupant with immediate<br />
response to changing environmental<br />
conditions or personal comfort preference.<br />
Being close to the occupant also increases<br />
ventilation efficiency. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard<br />
62-1999, “Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor <strong>Air</strong><br />
Quality,”(Second Public Review, August<br />
2001), p. 6, suggests a zone air distribution<br />
effectiveness greater than 1.0 for low velocity<br />
displacement ventilation. This means a<br />
substantial reduction in required outside air<br />
and a very substantial energy saving. This<br />
arrangement permits the use of a simple<br />
manual damper control within easy reach of<br />
the occupant.<br />
Figure 2<br />
Desk air terminal (vertical)<br />
Giving everyone personal control with a<br />
personal air outlet leads to a question: what to<br />
do with common space. A simple solution is to<br />
combine the personal outlet with a room outlet<br />
that keeps direct room air away <strong>from</strong> the<br />
occupant. The introduction of room air needs<br />
to be far enough <strong>from</strong> the occupant so that it<br />
2
does not interfere with the personal control.<br />
The combined airflow is designed to meet the<br />
cooling load of the person, the workstation and<br />
the adjacent area. If properly designed, the<br />
occupant can turn off the personal air supply<br />
without materially affecting total airflow. With<br />
this arrangement total airflow is relatively<br />
constant. Overall room temperature is then<br />
controlled <strong>from</strong> a space thermostat which can<br />
control the capacity of the air handler to meet<br />
the load requirements (see Figs. 2, 3 and 4).<br />
energy consumption stems <strong>from</strong> the higher<br />
operating room temperatures and the reduced<br />
fresh air requirement.<br />
Figure 4<br />
Floor/desk air terminal (horizontal)<br />
Figure 3<br />
Partition air terminal<br />
The room outlet can be a floor grille outside<br />
the workstation, or a separate grille mounted<br />
either in the furniture or in a space partition<br />
pointing to open space. This outlet may also<br />
exhaust through the top of furniture partitions<br />
(as was done at the bank installation<br />
mentioned above). The latter arrangements<br />
eliminate floor grilles and leave the floor clear<br />
for furniture placement and easier<br />
housekeeping.<br />
Fan air terminals are used in the access floor<br />
plenum 1) to produce the necessary static<br />
pressure for personal and room air outlets, 2)<br />
to eliminate air leakage out of the building<br />
(buildings are not airtight), and 3) to reduce<br />
distribution ductwork. They must be efficient,<br />
with low noise levels and a trouble free, long<br />
life. The additional energy use by these fans is<br />
offset by reduced energy consumption in the<br />
main air handler. The system reduces overall<br />
energy consumption by eliminating air leakage<br />
and reducing total fan horsepower because of<br />
greatly reduced ductwork. Additional reduced<br />
This arrangement also makes balancing the<br />
system much simpler. Fans can be added for<br />
additions in load at any time. For relocation<br />
and remodeling of workstations the fans can<br />
be easily moved, since there is no need to<br />
fasten them in place. They are simply located<br />
on the sub floor where needed.<br />
ANSI/ASHAE 55-1992, Para 5.1.6.3, stipulates<br />
a minimum underfloor temperature of 18°C<br />
(65°F). When supplying air at this temperature<br />
through a cooling coil, it is difficult to properly<br />
control humidity and impossible to use ice<br />
storage. The best strategy is to design the air<br />
handler cooling section to suit the chilled water<br />
or dx system and to bypass sufficient return air<br />
to get the leaving air temperature up to the<br />
desired temperature. This approach can use<br />
face and bypass dampers to control humidity<br />
and eliminates all saturated air <strong>from</strong> the space.<br />
Also, elimination of mixing in the occupied<br />
space produces a cleaner environment.<br />
Particles lighter that air will float up to high air<br />
returns and the system filters, instead of being<br />
recirculated by secondary air movement.<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
The system described above will air condition<br />
individual people instead of the building. It<br />
thus will eliminate dissatisfaction with thermal<br />
conditions (the number one complaint in most<br />
offices), lead to greater productivity and reduce<br />
the greatest cost in any office building, the<br />
3
payroll. By offering sustainability, reduced<br />
energy cost and a cleaner environment, it is<br />
the basis for a more efficient, more productive<br />
“green building.”<br />
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />
Special thanks for the development of the<br />
system go to Hank Spoormaker, PE, now<br />
deceased, who conceived of the zero pressure<br />
plenum twenty years ago in Johannesburg,<br />
South Africa. Appreciation also goes to Fred<br />
Bauman, UC Berkeley, whose support and<br />
diligent testing helped crystallize a lot of the<br />
concepts, and last, but not least, to Peter Betz<br />
and many others whose belief in a better<br />
system helped me to carry the ball.<br />
CODES AND STANDARDS<br />
ASHRAE. 1989. Ventilation for Acceptable<br />
Indoor <strong>Air</strong> Quality. ANSI/ASHRAE<br />
Standard 62-1989.<br />
ASHRAE. 1992. Thermal Environmental<br />
Conditions for Human Occupancy.<br />
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992.<br />
ASHRAE. 2001. ASHRAE Handbook of<br />
Fundamentals 2001.<br />
REFERENCES<br />
Akimoto, T., T. Nobe, S. Tanabe and K.<br />
Kimura. Floor-Supply Displacement <strong>Air</strong>-<br />
Conditioning: Laboratory Experiments.<br />
ASHRAE Transactions V. 105, Pt. 2. (SE-<br />
99-7-1).1999.<br />
Bauman, F., V. Inkarojrit, and Z. Hui. 2000.<br />
Laboratory Test of the <strong>Argon</strong> Personal <strong>Air</strong>-<br />
Conditioning System (<strong>APACS</strong>). Center for<br />
Environmental Design Research,<br />
University of California, Berkeley.<br />
Berglund, L.G. and A. Fobelets. A subjective<br />
human response to low level air currents<br />
and asymmetric radiation. ASHRAE<br />
Transactions 93(1):497-523. 1987.<br />
Blake-Thomas, G. Personally Controlled<br />
Environment: Today and Tomorrow –<br />
Putting People First. ASHRAE Seminar 24<br />
Winter Meeting. 1995.<br />
De Dear, R.J. and M. E. Fountain. Field<br />
Experiments on Occupant Comfort and<br />
Office Thermal Environments in a Hot-<br />
Humid Climate. ASHRAE Transactions V.<br />
100, Pt. 2. (OR-94-14-2 (3829) (RP-702))<br />
1994.<br />
Fanger, P.O. The variability of man’s preferred<br />
ambient temperature <strong>from</strong> day to day.<br />
Archives des Sciences Physiologiques<br />
27(4):A403. 1973.<br />
Fanger, P.O. and N.K. Christensen.<br />
Perception of draught in ventilated spaces.<br />
Ergonomics 29(2):215-35. 1986.<br />
Fanger, P.O., B.M. Ipsen, G. Langkilde, B.W.<br />
Olesen, N.K. Christensen and S. Tanabe.<br />
Comfort limits for asymmetric thermal<br />
radiation. Energy and Buildings. 1985.<br />
Fanger, P.O., A.K. Melikov, H. Hanzawa and J.<br />
Ring, J. Turbulence and draft. ASHRAE<br />
Journal 31(4):18-25. 1989.<br />
Fountain, M., E. Arens, R. de Dear, F. Bauman<br />
and K. Miura. Locally controlled air<br />
movement preferred in warm isothermal<br />
environments. ASHRAE Transactions V.<br />
100, Pt. 2. (OR-94-14-1) 1994.<br />
Kroner, W. M., and J. Stark-Martin.<br />
Environmentally responsive workstations<br />
and office-worker productivity. ASHRAE<br />
Transactions V. 100, Pt. 2. (OR-94-8-3)<br />
1994.<br />
Lorsch, H.G. and O. A. Abdou. The impact of<br />
the building indoor environment on<br />
occupant productivity –Part 1: Recent<br />
studies, measures and costs. ASHRAE<br />
Transactions V. 100, Pt. 2. (OR-94-8-2)<br />
1994<br />
Melikov, A.K., R. Arakelian, L. Halkjaer and<br />
P.O. Fanger. Spot cooling –Part 2:<br />
Recommendations for design of spotcooling<br />
systems. ASHRAE Transactions<br />
V. 100, Pt. 2. (OR-94-14-4 (3831) (RP-<br />
518))1994.<br />
Rohles, F.H. A human factors approach to<br />
performance and productivity. ASHRAE<br />
Transactions V. 100, Pt. 2. (OR-94-8-1).<br />
1994.<br />
Shute, R.W. Integrating access floor plenums<br />
for HVAC air distribution. ASHRAE<br />
Journal. October 1992.<br />
Sodec, F., and R. Craig. The underfloor air<br />
supply system –the European experience.<br />
ASHRAE Transactions V. 96, Pt. 2. (SL-<br />
907-4) 1990.<br />
Spoormaker, H.J. Low-pressure underfloor<br />
HVAC System. ASHRAE Transactions V.<br />
96, Pt. 2. (SL-90-7-2) 1990.<br />
Toftum, J., and P.O. Fanger. <strong>Air</strong> humidity<br />
requirements for human comfort.<br />
ASHRAE Transactions V. 105, Pt. 2. (SE-<br />
99-5-1) 1999.<br />
4